Bethea v. Town of Dillon

• Decision Date: 23 May 1912
• Citation: 74 S.E. 983,91 S.C. 413
• Parties: BETHEA v. TOWN OF DILLON et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

74 S.E. 983

91 S.C. 413

BETHEA v. TOWN OF DILLON et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 23, 1912

"To be officially reported."

Suit by W. T. Bethea against the Town of Dillon and others to enjoin the issuance of bonds of the town. Dismissed.

W. H Muller, of Dillon, for petitioner. J. B. Gibson, of Dillon for respondents.

HYDRICK J.

The petitioner, who is a resident taxpayer of the town of Dillon seeks to enjoin the town council and the commissioners of public works fro issuing the negotiable coupon bonds of said town to the amount of $77,000, which he alleges they are about to do. Of the amount which the respondents propose to issue, it appears that $39,000 are to be used in the establishing of a system of waterworks, and the balance, $38,000, in the building of a system of sewerage for the town.

The present value of all the property in the town as assessed for taxation by the state is $550,000. The existing bonded indebtedness of the town is $26,000, and that of school district No. 8, which embraces the same territory, in whole or in part, is $35,000.

The first ground upon which it is contended that the bonds cannot be legally issued is that the election which was held upon the question of issuing them was illegal, because the books of registration were not opened 20 days before the election and kept open for 10 days for the purpose of registering the qualified electors of the town, as required by statute. Section 195 of volume 1 of the Code of 1902, as amended by the act of 1908 (25 Stat. 1026), provides that 20 days prior to any special election to be held in any city or town the books of registration shall be opened for the registration of the names of the qualified electors therein, and shall remain open for 10 days. In this case, the books were opened August 4th and were kept open till August 13, 1911, both included. The election was held August 29, 1911. It will be seen that the books were opened 25 days before the election instead of 20 days as provided by the statute. While it is always better to comply literally with statutory requirements, still the slight variance in this case cannot be held to have vitiated the election, because it has not been made to appear that it affected the result. If it had been made to appear that a number of qualified electors sufficient to change the result had failed to obtain registration certificates because the books were not open during the time fixed by statute, and that they had thereby lost their right to vote, a more serious question would have been presented. But it does not appear that any qualified elector failed to obtain a registration certificate and the consequent right to vote on account of the variance of the time fixed by the statute. It follows that the irregularity complained of did not affect the result and was therefore immaterial. State v. Board, 86 S.C. 460, 68 S.E. 676.

The next question is whether the proposed issue of bonds is illegal because it will increase the bonded debt of the town to an amount in excess of 8 per cent. of the value of the property therein as assessed for taxation, and because it will increase the bonded debt of the territory embraced within the limits of both the town and school district No. 8 to an amount in excess of 15 per cent. of the taxable values thereof.

Section 7 of article 8 of the Constitution contains the following limitation: "No city or town in this state shall hereafter incur any bonded debt which, including existing bonded indebtedness, shall exceed eight per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property therein. ***" And section 5 of article 10 of the Constitution includes a limitation similar to the above, prescribing an 8 per centum limitation to the bonded...